If the prognostications of the Minister for Finance in the recent debates on the Vote on Account and on the Budget had been uttered from this side of the House, I am sure they would have been described by the Tánaiste as gloomy forebodings indicative of poor digestion on this side of the House, of digestive processes working unsatisfactorily or a feeling of resentment or frustration. We might be told that Opposition Parties often fail without very good reason, except the fact that they appear for the time being to be in opposition.
The sobering words, if not the very serious and grave utterances, of the Minister for Finance have possibly had one beneficial effect anyway, in that they reduced some of his colleagues to a proper frame of mind. I do not know whether I should associate the virtue of humility with particular Ministers, but in the case of the Tánaiste, I should like to say that, judging by his opening statement, the speeches of the Minister for Finance and the view of the Government which they enshrine seem to have reduced him to what might be described as a properly penitential frame of mind.
The Minister for Finance told us that he did not consider it would be realistic to expect any great increase in the volume of exports. The only significant increase he feels he can count upon during the present year is 100,000 additional cattle exported at the reduced prices now ruling. If that is so, it is obviously of the greatest necessity in the national interest that we should concentrate upon the possibilities of overcoming whatever disabilities—whether they are direct or indirect—are caused by reason of the fall in prices and the less favourable outlook for the agricultural industry.
The Minister for Finance went on to tell us that he feared the worsening terms of trade would continue to be a leading factor in the position this year. Trade figures show that we had an import excess again for the first four months of the present year of £35,000,000. A further £7,000,000 or nearly £8,000,000 must be added in respect of the adverse balance for May, 1956, so that, as far as the first five months are concerned, it appears that there is no improvement and the Government, if we are to judge by the statements of the Minister for Finance as representing its attitude and its point of view, has not been able to hold out any prospect of improvement.
With regard to the agricultural industry, it was quite obvious for the past few years that the economy and the relative boom conditions we had been experiencing depended upon the high prices for cattle in the English market. That situation has changed. The agricultural price index shows a significant fall as compared with last year and the price review settled by the British Government which determines the level of beef prices has the important condition that, when it comes round again next February, the next determination of prices will be based on the prices ruling in the preceding 12 months.
While we may admit that the British authorities may strive in the interests of their own economy and of their farmer-producers to spread out the fall in agricultural prices and avoid any catastrophic fall, nevertheless it seems clear enough that their aim is to effect a reduction, gradually but substantially. I pointed out on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture that, with regard to bacon, poultry and eggs, products in which our small farmers are particularly interested, the results of the price review over there were not satisfactory. If they may be so regarded by the beef producers, they certainly have not been satisfactory to the smaller producers who have to depend on these products.
At the same time, farmers' costs, here as elsewhere, have gone up. They can point to the fact that, whatever may be said about agricultural production not having increased during the past 50 years, it is entirely due to extraneous circumstances—generally the occurrence of a war—that the agricultural industry has been enabled to raise itself out of the doldrums. Furthermore, it has been accepted, in regard to the determination of prices over the water, that, in view of the difficulty of assuring to farmer-producers benefits comparable to those that might be granted to industrialists or exporters, in the fixing of prices allowance must be made for the capital invested by farmers in their industry. It is an essential principle, in my view, in the determination of prices for agricultural produce, that the Government should endeavour to ensure that farmers will have incentives to increase production and that the price will not only remunerate them for increasing costs, including labour, but will also have due regard to the capital which the farmer must invest in his holding, stock, machinery and equipment if he is to get the results we would all wish.
Over this whole situation lies the shadow of the Argentine beef trade. I am not trying to create any panic by anything I say in that regard. I have referred to it for the past few years and so has the Minister for Agriculture. One has only to read the leading article in the Farmers' Journal to realise how perturbed our farmers are at a situation which they think means there may be an importation of up to 1,000,000 head of Argentine cattle to Great Britain. It is with that background that we have to regard the trade figures which have caused such anxiety. When we consider that, of the import excess of £35,000,000, less than 50 per cent. seems to be attributable to the sterling area for the first four months of the present year, it makes us feel that the steps that have been taken in the way of reduction of imports by the imposition of special levies are not sufficient.
The May figures indicated a slight increase in respect of the situation because exports were up to a figure comparable to that of the preceding year and imports were down substantially. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, even if we assume that May was a fairly good month—and we had the advantage in that month of comparatively heavy exports of live stock and a certain movement in that branch of the industry—the figure of well over £7,000,000 for a month which might be described as more favourable than the preceding months is not one that we can view with any degree of satisfaction.
If a full consciousness of the gravity of the situation is in the mind of the Government then I think sufficient steps are not being taken to encourage the farming community who may have, as the Tánaiste and others suggested, the feeling that if they produce more they are not likely to gain, that there is a shrinking market, that prices are falling and that they ought to be content with maintaining the level of production of the present time. If that point of view exists among them, I think this only action of the Government in the way of giving incentive to the smaller men—who will, during the coming year, feel the pinch, I am afraid, more than they have felt it since cattle prices began to fall—is not sufficient and that there would be need for a more imaginative and, if one may again use the phrase, a more dynamic approach to the problems of the agricultural industry.
There should be greater effort to get the co-operation, the goodwill and the participation, in whatever schemes are in existence or may come into being, of the associations of agriculture and producers so that they will feel this is not just merely a task which they are being asked to perform by a Government or Opposition or political or other public leaders but is one in which the responsibility has been placed directly upon themselves and which, through their own representatives, through their own organisations, they are being asked to fulfill.
In Great Britain, you have various local organisations, county committees of agriculture, and, during the war period and since, through them the policy of building up agricultural production over there has very largely been carried out. It seems to me that some similar organisation representative of the farmers themselves— whether technicians, managers, experts in transport problems, processing and marketing—could be called in and is essential, if we are to get out of the doldrums which may not even remain doldrums but may proceed to blow fairly high winds and hurricanes in the years to come.
Now is the time to concentrate on these possibilities and to take the representatives of the agricultural industry fully into the confidence of the Government and make them feel they are getting a lead and encouragement and, what is more important from the farmers' point of view, some kind of an incentive that will indicate to them that, over the years, they can go ahead with improving their holdings, expanding their output and production and adopting the necessary machinery which rural electrification and mechanisation have placed at their disposal and, where it is possible for them to utilise it, to step up the produce of their farms.
The Minister pointed to a reduction of £716,000 on last year's figure for subsidies in respect of flour and wheat-meal prices. He has stated that this reduction is due to a fall in the cost of native wheat and to the decision that no subsidy would be paid in respect of flour used for confectionery and biscuit manufacture. May I ask whether any portion of the reduction is attributable to the cost of imported wheat? It is significant that when the Minister for Finance was speaking on the Vote on Account he described this substantial reduction in the figure for flour and wheatmeal subsidies as being attributable to both home and imported wheat. I imagine the House would like to know just what proportion of the reduction is attributable to native and what portion to imported wheat and what portion to the other factor mentioned by the Tánaiste, that is, to the change in respect of the subsidy for confectionery and biscuit manufacture.
That means that the subsidy estimated for the present year comes to £6,284,000; last year it was £7,000,000. In the year 1954-55 it came to over £8,000,000, so that there has been a reduction, and that reduction, I think it can be argued, has been at the expense of the producers. The Tánaiste is very eloquent and very emotional when he talks of the steps we took to reduce the cost of food subsidies in 1952, but as far as the Estimates of his Department are concerned they have fallen from over £8,000,000 to £6,250,000, roughly, according to the figures for the present year. That is at least £1,750,000 in the two years, and I suggest that the reduction has been effected at the expense of the wheat producers of this country, at a time when we are importing wheat to the extent of millions of pounds. Recently the figure of £5,000,000 loomed very large in our import figures. One wonders whether it is good economy, common sense or wise for the State to expend our hard-earned dollars on foreign wheat, or any other foreign grain, while we have this anxiety and this necessity which undoubtedly exists to step up agricultural production. The only way to do it, I suggest, is by giving farmers incentives, not by giving them disincentives to turn them from wheat growing or tillage operations to some other line.
The Tánaiste used to tell us in his halcyon days that prices were altogether too high and "must be reduced by subsidies if necessary." In fact, subsidies were to be introduced to bring prices back to the pre-1952 Budget figures in respect of the main foodstuffs. In his election address, as well as in a letter that he wrote, the Tánaiste went so far as to tell the electors in the most solemn manner that he pledged himself to a reduction in prices, and not alone that, but to a reduction of the taxes on cigarettes, beer and spirits. Prices were altogether too high, he said, and must be reduced by subsidies if necessary. The cost-of-living index figure is now about ten points higher than when the Tánaiste took office. He has referred to the activities of the Prices Advisory Body, and while the matter was under discussion we had an interjection from the Government Benches that Deputies on this side of the House should perhaps go down to the sittings of the Prices Advisory Body and make their case there against the increases in prices that are being sought by various interests. One would imagine, as Deputy Lemass pointed out, that in respect of these matters the responsibility is surely upon the Government in the first instance. The Tánaiste has asked trade union leaders and other representatives of public opinion and those who might be described as representing consumers' interests to go down there.
An Irish economist said, when the report of the Commission on Emigration and Population was published—I think it is in the minority report, or in a statement made by him about that time—that he was astonished that Governments and politicians apparently could still believe—I do not think he said "purport to believe"; let us assume he said "could still believe"— that they could reduce prices. The Taoiseach has plaintively admitted, and offered as excuse for the failure to reduce prices, reduce taxes and give the people a better living at a lower cost, that they could not control the situation. They had done as much as any Government had done, he said, but what could they do, in effect, when prices of goods which had to be imported had increased?
If the Taoiseach takes that point of view, that the situation is one which the Government could not control and could not take steps to negative and set at naught, what purpose would be served by anybody going down to the Prices Advisory Body and making the case, which the Taoiseach and, presumably, the Tánaiste and other members of the Government have accepted, that these increases are inevitable, that nothing could be done about them and that we must simply grin and bear them?
We had the Minister for Finance telling us, as reported in column 328, Volume 157 of the Official Report during the debate on the Vote on Account, that we are consuming more than we are producing. He emphasised that viewpoint with an even greater degree of determination and earnestness in his Budget statement. The Minister for Agriculture repeated the argument over the week-end. We still remember that we were told, when the Fianna Fáil administration suggested that steps should be taken to deal with that situation, that we were telling the people they were living too well; that we wanted to interfere with their standard of living; their way of life; that we stood for a programme of austerity and wanted the people to put on hair shirts, and so on.
Now we have the situation in which the Minister for Finance tells us that a further increase in money incomes, not matched by an improvement in production and productivity, can only at this juncture drive up domestic prices. The Minister also said that an expansion of exports requires that costs of production be prevented from rising. He hoped for stability in money incomes. It was pointed out by the Tánaiste also, in reiterating what the Taoiseach had already said— changing his ground completely from the position he occupied only two years ago—that, in addition to the circumstances over which the Government had no control in respect of increases in the price of imported raw materials and so on, increases in wages had contributed in varying degrees to the increased cost of industrial production. As regards industrial production, the Tánaiste has given exactly the same figures as he gave last year. These figures have not yet doubled over those of 1938. As was pointed out recently, earnings have increased at a greater rate than production.
The report of the Central Statistics Office, called the Irish Statistical Survey, has pointed out in its last report on page 34, that since 1948 the earnings index has remained above the cost of living, the figure for 1954 being 253 for the earnings index and 232 for the cost of living. The organ of the Trade Union Research Department has pointed out that there is a figure of, I think, £53,000,000, about 45 per cent. of our current expenditure, spent on social and ancillary services during the present year.
Everyone knows there has been an enormous increase in the cost of these services, as well as an expansion of their scope. The cost of all that must come out of the increased production which is not there and which, in respect of the most important branch of our economy, agriculture, fell by 2 per cent. last year. It is no wonder that the Minister for Finance should try to impress upon the country and on those behind him who participate in the Government that there should be stability in respect of money incomes. I do not know whether it affords any great consolation, but it is perhaps encouraging that the Tánaiste on this occasion has followed suit, at least to the extent of admitting that increases in wages have contributed in varying degrees to the increased costs of industrial production.
The Tánaiste told us that coal prices had gone up in England. He referred as well to freight charges. One would like to know what inquiry has been made in this regard, because the Tánaiste has stated that a close eye is being kept on this situation, that it is constantly the subject of review and attention. One would like to know what the position is with regard to our fuel reserves. What inquiries, if any, are being made by the industrial research body into the problem of fuel utilisation? For example, have we succeeded in evolving a peat-burning domestic water boiler which will compete with other boilers on the market and which will give better results and cheaper results to the Irish housewife? What inquiry has been made in respect of authracite production from our native coal resources? Are steps being taken to see we get the maximum production? In regard to the areas which the Tánaiste outlined as having been selected for special examination and survey, it was very noticeable that no reference was made to the Kilkenny and Midlands coalfields. We know that the people have been promised that a survey would take place and I should like to ask whether it is in contemplation, what has been done about it, and if it has been started, are we likely to have any report during the present year?
With regard to freight charges, it goes without saying that the recent increases in cross-Channel rates have gravely affected the agricultural industry. The representatives of the livestock export trade have, I feel sure, made representations in connection with the matter and one wonders whether, in view of what the Tánaiste has stated elsewhere in his opening statement with regard to steps being taken to develop our native shipping fleet, whether more will not have to be done to ensure that, in competing in the foreign market, our exporters and producers will not have to bear any unnecessary handicaps or burdens.
There is the question of charges in general as compared with the charges of our competitors, the Danes or the New Zealanders. These countries, by reason of the better organisation of their producers and their organisation, not alone for production but for marketing, and for the export of their produce, are able to place that produce on the English market at prices and at rates that I am sure would astonish you. As regards the loading and the unloading, the handling, the packing and unpacking and the delivery to ship and ex-ship, when you consider the high proportion of shipping charges that must go with these items, you will realise that the long sea journey does not cost any disproportionate figure. In regard to shipping costs, the costs that are significant and the costs that can be tackled are those involving the handling and the shipping of the goods, particularly their handling at the ports, and one would like to know whether any inquiry has been or will be made into that matter.
If we intend to take advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded of getting a real foothold on the continental market, it is obviously necessary that our exports to that market should be prompt and speedy, that if the produce itself is not to suffer, it ought to be certain that all arrangements are made for the most speedy and efficient despatch of the goods and that no local obstacles will hold up what might be a very successful venture and what might afford to Irish agriculture reasonable alternatives, at any rate, to the main market upon which they depend and about which they are so anxious at the present time.
The attitude across the Border is that transport costs are of the first importance in the marketing of their produce and are also, of course, of great importance in securing raw materials and necessary imports at the lowest possible price. We are undoubtedly at a disadvantage in that respect as compared with our industrial and other competitors across the water. They have various advantages in relation to raw materials, credit and advice, facilities about marketing, large scale organisation, and so on, that we have not got, which make it essential that a real and thorough examination be made of all the items that go to build up the cost of our agricultural produce between the time it leaves the farm and the time it is placed upon the English market.
In that connection, it would seem that our contribution to transport is not getting less, but is increasing. In the year ended 1952, our contribution towards the G.N.R. was £225,000; in April to August, 1953, it was £260,000; in September, 1953 to September, 1954, it was £288,000; in 1954-55, it was £352,000; and the Tánaiste has told us that the contribution towards running expenses, capital expenditure and losses will be much greater during the present year. He has also told us that the losses of C.I.E., which amounted to £866,000 last year, are likely to be doubled this year.
It is consoling to turn from that picture to the progress made in respect of shipping. It is a hazardous trade and at times has had serious depressions. The capital expenditure is heavy, but with the booming trading conditions in the world at the present time, with the fact that our cargo vessels and our tankers have been so successful so far and that we have gained that experience and that knowledge, not without profit financially, it seems fairly sure that, if we pay due attention to conditions and try to maintain the contacts we have and gradually develop them, there should continue to be a bright future for Irish shipping.
When we turn to the airports, we find that although the position has improved, there are still very substantial deficits. In 1954-55, counting everything that was chargeable or attributable to the running of the airport, we find there was a deficiency of £500,000, which is being reduced. I notice that the revenue at Shannon seems somewhat less proportionately than the greatly increased numbers of landings there would seem to indicate. I should also like to ask whether the cost of the Viscounts that were purchased some years ago and which are giving such satisfactory results has been paid out of the revenues accruing from Aer Lingus operations.
Towards the conclusion of his speech in regard to State-sponsored bodies, the Tánaiste stated at column 794, Volume 158 of the Official Debates of 20th June, 1956:—
"These bodies were deliberately constituted so as to afford them the greatest possible liberty of action in their day-to-day operations. Broadly speaking, my functions with regard to them are confined to the appointment of members of the board, to ensuring that their general activities conform with national policy and to ensure that full value is obtained for the State funds which may be made available to the bodies each year."
I think we can all concur in these principles and I, at any rate, would like personally to concur very fully in the latter statement. Because our resources are limited, it is necessary to see, as was pointed out in a paper to which reference has been made here already in debates, that we get the utmost value for State capital expenditure—not merely that we provide employment, which is a very worthy purpose and very desirable, but that as far as possible the employment will be productive, and that, through the employment of State expenditure, in the most economic and efficient way, we will be able to build up funds and reserves which will cover depreciation, which is a very heavy item in these undertakings, and build up reserves for the provision of fresh equipment which runs into very high figures indeed. It is suggested that in that way a buoyant and dynamic economy so far as these bodies are concerned can be developed, that we can look forward with assurance, knowing that these bodies are taking every possible step to safeguard their financial future and are planning ahead.
This House has given them the opportunity and advantage of being able to do that, without day-to-day interference in their business and without professing to dictate to them what their policy should be. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate, seeing that the great bulk of national capital expenditure for years past has gone into these undertakings, that Deputies who are interested should not be enabled to get fuller information, even if they only got it as visitors, of seeing what is in progress, what is contemplated and what these boards and bodies have in mind for development during the coming years.
The Tánaiste has referred to the operations of Bord na Móna and the setting up of a new briquette factory on a large scale. He has hinted, if he has not definitely said so, that perhaps there may be an increase in the price of briquettes. Personally I have always tried to support the native as against imported fuel, and so have a good many others, but, as a matter of general interest, and some importance to the community, one would like to know what the estimated cost of the briquettes may be. I may be told that the plans have not yet advanced so far, but when I detect this implication, that there may be an increase in price, the criterion may be that we shall have to pay the much higher price for imported coal. Presumably Bord na Móna will have a margin to work upon and greater scope to produce and sell its briquettes in competition with foreign coal.
That is, of course, a point of view, but one expects these State and semi-State bodies to have regard to the consumer interest and also to the investment side with which I have just dealt. We cannot blame them and we must sympathise with them and encourage them in building up their finances in order to be prepared for future eventualities—to develop, expand and progress.
There is however also the point of view of the consumer. Many, even in a Socialist economy, Socialist economists, would contend that if there is any advantage to be gained, if these institutions are in a position to produce more and to have the backing of the State to support them in their efforts over a long period of years, it should be regarded as a primary and cardinal principle of their policy that the consumer will get the utmost benefit from their operations. Many critics, in fact, contend that an economy that does not aim at or cannot hold out hope of a reduction in price in respect of manufactured commodities or other products, particularly when they are being financed on a large scale and produced by the operations of State organisations, has no great future.
It has struck me very forcibly when the Tániste is lecturing to industrialists or business people about keeping down prices and paying the utmost attention to the consumer interest, that we really ought to examine our own position before we give lectures to others. Unless we are satisfied that bodies, for which the Government and this House have a special responsibility, are doing their utmost and giving good example by way of advantages and reductions to the consumer, then it is anomalous, to say the least of it.
I noticed that the British Electricity Authority and the Coal Board have announced that they are pegging their prices for the coming year. Smaller units run on private capital are unable to face the fluctuations of higher costs of materials, high wage costs and market difficulties and may not always be able to give the lead in that matter, but if we are to carry out in earnest the policy the Minister for Finance has adumbrated of trying to stabilise incomes, we surely ought to ask the State bodies to set an example. This applies in particular to those which have not serious elements of competition but have rather a strong element of monopoly. Some of them have that element of competition, for which allowance must be made; but those that have the benefit of monopoly in a special degree, and State support, ought surely to give good example.
The Tánaiste told us, as Deputy Lemass reminded him, that it was not anticipated by him or by the Government that there would be any risk of retarding development or necessity to increase charges for current in respect of the new subsidisation arrangements for rural electrification. Previously, as I understood it, the position was that the E.S.B. had to repay half the cost and the other half was supposed to be allowed to them by way of grants. I do not know if all these grants were passed in the annual Estimates in this House, or what the total liability that has been placed on them in respect of the recent legislation may be. I have seen the figure of £2,000,000 mentioned, but I do not know whether it is the correct figure or not. At any rate, an additional burden has been placed upon them.
When that was pointed out from this side of the House, the Tánaiste said— I quote from column 274, Volume 150 of the Official Debates—of the E.S.B.:—
"They have had a combination of a low average age for their assets, a policy of a high standard of maintenance and of building up substantial reserves. This combination has put them in a very good financial position."
The Minister for Lands interjected that we had the advantage of having the cheapest electricity rate in Europe. I do not know if that can be authenticated or verified. I hope it can.
It has been suggested that if the E.S.B. reduced their prices there might be a greater demand for current. It has been an accepted principle in the world of business and trade that, if you are not getting the market, you reduce the price and the more you reduce the price of your products the more likelihood there is of increasing sales. The Tánaiste told us that last year an aggressive policy of salesmanship had been carried out. In that connection, I hope the E.S.B. will do its utmost to give the most expert specialist advice possible to the farmers to enable and encourage them to utilise current to the maximum degree in their operations.
Is it the position that the demand is inelastic, or is it the position that saturation point has been reached in the demand for electricity in this State? It is a well-known fact, of which I need hardly remind the Tánaiste, that, in other countries, where there is free competition in the electrical industry, these industries have to set out to sell electricity at a price that will induce consumers to use electricity to a greater extent.
With regard to the problems of production generally, the Government and Ministers have exhorted and even supplicated the interests concerned to produce more and to establish standards of greater productivity. Side by side with that, the Minister for Finance has told us that savings must be improved significantly. He has told us that he hopes savings will improve to a significant degree during the present year. I do not know whether that hope is fulfilled by the most recent figures available to him. It would seem to be the position that we are living in an age in which the trend is to consume the whole of the income and, perhaps, with the assistance of hire purchase, even more than the income. I do not know whether or not that is due to the fact that people feel that there is not the same necessity to save as there was in the past, that their old age will be provided for, their necessities in regard to health treatment well catered for.
One wonders if these factors have not created a deterrent, particularly in the case of those in employment, to the putting aside of something for the rainy day. It seems to be the belief now that it is only for amusement, holidays or pleasure that money should be set aside. It has been fairly well proved in Great Britain in respect to the nationalised industries that if the people employed in those industries and all the other millions of workers do not put some of their money back into industry it will not be possible for the industries to proceed and it is generally admitted that it will not be possible to have the standards that one would wish to have in respect to social welfare, health services and all the other amenities which the public purse has provided in recent years.
The principle of deferred pay was introduced during the war period, largely for the purpose of diminishing the inflationary pressure. If more money was spent on the smaller supply of goods available, it would simply force up prices. There was always the hope that the deferred pay would be invested either in public or private undertakings. We know that public investment has taken the lion's share of our capital expenditure in recent years and, in future, the capital requirements of private industry must receive more attention.
In the debates on the Estimates and other financial debates here during the year, the emphasis has been on State capital investment and the operations of State and semi-State bodies, but, as has been pointed out by Ministers, if we are to get into the export market, now that the requirements of the home market are well provided for, we shall have to equip our industries; we shall have to get the necessary technical skill and knowledge, management and equipment required to enable us to compete more satisfactorily with the increasingly severe trade competition in the markets to which we would like to export.
Automation, which has been introduced into Britain, seems to have been accepted by a great body of trade union opinion. I do not know whether or not it will be accepted in the long run, but we are led to believe that it is accepted, first, on the ground that eventually employment will be provided for all those at present employed, and more, and, since there is a shortage of manpower, that might seem to be justified; and, secondly, because the adoption of this modern method will lead to much higher standards of living and much higher remuneration and conditions for everybody in the long run.
There has been a production council in operation in England. In fact, there are several of them and the chairman of one of them is a Mr. Williamson; he was at one time chairman of the Trade Union Congress. If labour bodies and labour interests are brought directly into these production problems and if they are made to see the picture for themselves and have a certain degree of responsibility placed upon them in reaching decisions within the industries concerned, I have no doubt whatever that nothing but good will result.
I am glad that the Labour Court seems to be received now with more favour than was the case in the past. I am sure we are all agreed that that body has done splendid work during the ten years in which it has been in existence. We may not always approve of its decisions for one reason or another. In my own small way, I always told labour organisations on every opportunity that offered that they could always go back if conditions altered to their disadvantage, or if they were not satisfied with the awards made. There was never any question —and there need be no question if we keep our heads—of going back. But, if we are to go forward, such an advance demands full-scale co-operation by every one of us. It is because I believe that, in an examination of our present position and in planning for the future, it is necessary to have the most exact assessment and appreciation of the costings position, that I make the observations I am now offering.
I am also glad to see that management courses are being carried on. If the younger men in the smaller businesses can be given an opportunity of doing courses in the larger undertakings, I am sure that nothing but good will result. I believe there is to be an award for the satisfactory completion of a course in management. That is all to the good. It is very noticeable in relation to the plans which are being made in Great Britain that, in the expansion and improvement of facilities for technical training, greater emphasis is being placed on experience and practical knowledge, based on actual work in the factory. In fact, it seems to be part of the scheme that over a period of years a worker, who has the capacity in a subordinate post and who wants to advance himself to the higher scale executive grades, will be able to do sandwich courses, working most of the time in the factory and attending courses for perhaps four months of the year; and, after a period of five or six years, he will be granted a certificate in technology equivalent to, in the most advanced courses, a university degree and, in fact, likely to be more sought after and more valued than a good university degree.
I was glad to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce state that he is to bring forward proposals with relation to apprenticeship. In Britain, there is a national advisory council to deal with this problem of technical training, as there is, I think, a national advisory council to deal with apprenticeship. There, again, if we had the co-operation of both employers and trade union organisations, and other bodies of that nature, I am sure that the problems of apprenticeship and technical training would be susceptible of solution and more progress would be made in making up arrears and in setting up higher standards of training for our workers.
In relation to experimental and research work under Bord na Móna, there is a grant-in-aid of £10,000. I think it would be better if industries financed their own research as far as possible; but if the Government could assure these individual industries or individual units of industry that they would be assisted in carrying out experimental and research work and that arrangements would be made for them to see what is being done in countries comparable with ours, such as Holland, Switzerland, or even Germany, that would be of considerable advantage.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce also referred to industrial consultants. The same considerations apply there. We ought to encourage every trained executive and every manager with technical experience and technical knowledge, and we should make them feel that there is a future for them here. The pressure of the draw is so great on our own nationals that it is extremely difficult to hold these men. I remember a distinguished university professor of science telling me that, although he was paid twice as much when working in another country, he felt he was happier and better off in Ireland. He, of course, held a university post. Whether that meant he had a much easier time than if he were carrying the responsibilities of management or scientific adviser in a modern factory is the question.
There can be no doubt, however, that in relation to a great many of our young men working in industry in England, an effort should be made to keep them together and have them interested in what is going on at home. Whenever the opportunity offers, even though that opportunity may involve an effort and a certain financial strain, we should get them back here in order to have their experience and knowledge. Very often, too, they might be in a position to contribute something in the way of helping to get investment here, which would be all to the good. One wonders whether we have that touch with our brethren across the water that we ought to have. It is not fair to expect the Embassy in London to keep in contact with all these thousands of people, but it is worth a special effort to do so. Whether we like it or not, many of our young people—many of them highly trained and educated and others of them ordinary workers who have gone into building or some other business and built themselves up—are there and it would be of the greatest advantage if they could be kept together in some movement of the Irish people in Great Britain.
The danger is that we may lose trace of these important professional and scientific elements and that the main effort will be to look after the newly arrived emigrants. That is, of course, very necessary. No social work could be more important, but I would like it if we could have some sort of association for our Irish people by which we could keep contact with them and those who have gone over from the universities ought to give the lead in that direction. They ought to give the lead and help to keep the Irish people together so that the day of integration, as it is called, may be kept as far away as possible. No matter how long they may be over there, we should try to make it so that they will still regard this country as their own and so that the links they have with it will be maintained. The links with the Government through associations of that kind, and links with industry, would be very important and very beneficial.
I was glad to see that the operations under the Undeveloped Areas Acts have been progressing and that good results have been shown. A large number of units have been started and we have been told that a total sum of about £3,000,000 has been invested. I hope that every assistance by way of advice and help will be given to the promoters of these industries. They have special problems in getting established in these areas. The early years are very trying and very painful at times. There is an amount of trial and error. I think it would be a very bad blow to our prestige, from the national point of view, if there was any substantial failure or any lack of success, or any question of these undertakings not reaching the standards of achievement that we had expected.
As regards these areas, I know that the fishing industry and the tweed industry are the two main activities upon which attention should be concentrated. Tourism is also important, and I agree that it will take a large period of years for An Tóstal to deliver the goods and before it is accepted as a normal activity by the people in the different towns and other areas in the country. One wishes that more attention could be given to the general question of cleaning up. An important British organisation is coming here—I think, this year or next year—and we would all like our country, and particularly our capital city, to look its best on that occasion.
I have referred to this matter already on the Board of Works Estimate. I do not think that anything could be of more value than to have a few hundred educated gentlemen, and their wives and families, representative of the universities, and of the outside world of learning and science, coming here. We could do with many more contacts of that nature. I hope that more will be done to remove any eye-sores there may be in the vicinity of our beauty spots, or of the historical monuments or buildings these people are likely to visit.
I notice that the Scottish motor coach industry, which is a great part of the Scottish tourist industry, is credited with bringing 100,000 visitors to Scotland each year. I know that there is great room for development in the tours which C.I.E. operate. The only question is whether there is the necessary equipment to deal with the large number of visitors. We would not want anybody who comes here on such a tour to be dissatisfied. Of course, if the weather is fine, they will be satisfied enough, but if the weather should happen not to be good, we would like to give these people every possible courtesy and care and attention.
The Minister referred here to our exports of tweed. I do not know what the prospects may be, but when you realise that the Scottish output of tweed is about 11,000,000 square yards, and that in a single year, they have increased the output by about 1,000,000 yards, not to speak of the huge income they get from the American market in respect of whisky, it shows that we have a great leeway to make up before we can produce figures comparable with these.
With Deputy Lemass, I regret that the Tánaiste was not able to give us more definite information about the oil refinery but, as it is a very important matter, I am sure that we are prepared to wait until he is. When he announced as far back as February, 1955, that the main principles for the establishment of the refinery had been agreed upon between the Government and the companies concerned——